Scalia will have to eat his words, again....

[MindMover]

The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death


Groundbreaking Columbia law school study sets out in shocking detail the flaws that led to Carlos DeLuna's execution in 1989

A few years ago, Antonin Scalia, one of the nine justices on the US supreme court, made a bold statement. There has not been, he said, "a single case – not one – in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred … the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

Scalia may have to eat his words. It is now clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit, and his name – Carlos DeLuna – is being shouted from the rooftops of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. The august journal has cleared its entire spring edition, doubling its normal size to 436 pages, to carry an extraordinary investigation by a Columbia law school professor and his students.

The book sets out in precise and shocking detail how an innocent man was sent to his death on 8 December 1989, courtesy of the state of Texas. Los Tocayos Carlos: An Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution, is based on six years of intensive detective work by Professor James Liebman and 12 students.

Starting in 2004, they meticulously chased down every possible lead in the case, interviewing more than 100 witnesses, perusing about 900 pieces of source material and poring over crime scene photographs and legal documents that, when stacked, stand over 10ft high.

What they discovered stunned even Liebman, who, as an expert in America's use of capital punishment, was well versed in its flaws. "It was a house of cards. We found that everything that could go wrong did go wrong," he says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death

[gratuitous]

1. First, nobody in the U.S. will hear about this

It's up to England to report on this horrible miscarriage of what passes for justice in this country. And Scalia doesn't give a tin shit about being wrong; he has his lifetime sinecure and will continue to be the wart he is until the massive coronary that's coming his way sends him into Satan's waiting arms.

[dballance]

2. Tony the fixer doesn't give a shit and, sadly, neither do most US citizens

Scalia was probably on the sidelines laughing his ass off at the George W. Bush interview where Bush mocked the woman he executed while governor of TX. Being so crass and heartless as he imitated her in her plea to him not to kill her.

Not surprising this travesty of justice also happened in TX. They still practice a shoot first and ask questions later mentality. And cover it all up if they made a mistake. TX and AZ still have some serious issues with coming into the 20th century much les the 21st.

As an earlier poster noted very few people outside DU will ever hear of this. I notice that most of the scathing and real investigative journalism stories do seem to come from outlets like The Guardian or Al Jezeera. Neither of which are news outlets most US citizens read regularly.

[Rex]

3. Tony don't eat his own words.

Tony pretends he is never wrong.

[Dawson Leery]

4. His brothers over at porkone have his back:

http://www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/5558454-Report-Texas-executed-wrong-man-in-89/

Filth!

[elleng]

5. OK

[pacalo]

6. The two men looked so much alike -- & the police knew this -- yet DNA wasn't used.

I know from reading John Grisham's "An Innocent Man" how the prosecution can manipulate the law against death-row prisoners who have to rely on public defenders &, therefore, don't have the money to pay for the expensive DNA procedure. It's really horrifying how the law works against poor people.


'Los tocayos Carlos' – Hernandez and DeLuna looked so alike that they were sometimes mistaken for twins. Photographs: Corpus Christi police department/DeLuna family/Hernandez family/Texas dept of criminal justice/Corpus Christi Caller Times

Top (left to right): Hernandez; Hernandez; Hernandez; DeLuna.
Bottom (left to right): DeLuna; Hernandez; DeLuna; DeLuna

[tblue37]

7. They don't look alike at all to me.

One (DeLuna) has a much heavier, rounder jawline. The other (Hernandez) has a different forehead line and a shorter, sharper chin. Their hair is different, too.

I saw front views of their faces elsewhere, and the differences are even more pronounced.

Okay, they had the same first name, but I don't see any other similarities (except their brown skin and dark hair, perhaps?).

Anyone who thinks they look like twins probably also thought Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito looked like real identical twins in the movie Twins!

[pacalo]

8. I guess I ain't dat smart.

[Solomon]

11. Okay. Let's say one of these guys assaulted you and then police showed you the pictures.

Do you really really honestly believe, you would be able to see all the differences you are now pointing out seated comfortably at your computer? Be honest about it. This is why the wrong guy gets executed. Attitudes like yours.

[tblue37]

13. Probably I would. I am severely hearing-impaired, so I rely

more on visual information than most people do. I pay very close attention to visual details that most people don't even notice. (Many people find my awareness of such details rather unnerving, to be honest.)

[RainDog]

9. Scalia defended capital punishment as "god's law"

and also said that christians shouldn't care about capital punishment b/c of heaven.

yeah, this asshole actually made those statements. of course, he also thinks the constitution is dead. he sure does seem to want to kill it. He quotes Paul to defend the death penalty as a christian practice and defends putting people to death because of the authority god gives to him and others.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gods-justice-and-ours-32

These passages from Romans represent the consensus of Western thought until very recent times. Not just of Christian or religious thought, but of secular thought regarding the powers of the state. That consensus has been upset, I think, by the emergence of democracy. It is easy to see the hand of the Almighty behind rulers whose forebears, in the dim mists of history, were supposedly anointed by God, or who at least obtained their thrones in awful and unpredictable battles whose outcome was determined by the Lord of Hosts, that is, the Lord of Armies. It is much more difficult to see the hand of God—or any higher moral authority—behind the fools and rogues (as the losers would have it) whom we ourselves elect to do our own will. How can their power to avenge—to vindicate the “public order”—be any greater than our own?

So it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral is centered in the West. That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the West is the home of democracy. Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul. But losing this life, in exchange for the next? The Christian attitude is reflected in the words Robert Bolt’s play has Thomas More saying to the headsman: “Friend, be not afraid of your office. You send me to God.” And when Cranmer asks whether he is sure of that, More replies, “He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him.” For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence. What a horrible act!

Besides being less likely to regard death as an utterly cataclysmic punishment, the Christian is also more likely to regard punishment in general as deserved

Scalia's remarks make the case for a secular democracy.

He criticizes the Catholic church for opposing the death penalty based upon "prudential considerations" It seems to me it would be prudent to have a policy that would not sentence one innocent person to death. As Scalia himself noted - to kill an innocent person means the loss of the soul. It seems that his defense of the same accomplishes the same goal.

[CanonRay]

10. Scalia is wrong about so many things

yet believes he has never been wrong in his life. Where to begin...

[UTUSN]

12. R#21 & K for, like the arrogant a-hole will give a f*** - his usual reaction: